Summary: There was no fault in the Council not approving Mr X’s application under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. It had a responsibility to ensure safeguarding and acted in line with guidance. It was at fault in the delays telling Mr X it had not approved his application and allowed Mr X to attend an appointment with the Council unnecessarily and has apologised for the delays. The Council has agreed to offer Mr X a financial remedy to properly recognise the injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will refer to as Mr X, says the council gave him misleading information and was wrong not to accept him on the ‘Homes for Ukraine’ housing scheme.
2. He also says the Council unnecessarily delayed giving him this decision which meant he incurred unnecessary expense.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
8. I considered the Homes for Ukraine guidance for local authorities.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background to Homes for Ukraine Scheme

10. In March 2022 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DHLUC) set up a scheme which would allow UK citizens (sponsors) to house Ukrainian refugees (guests).
11. The DHLUC ran the scheme and Councils had a role in supporting sponsors and guests locally who had been ‘matched’.

What should have happened

12. According to the guidance Councils is responsible for ensuring Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are completed.
13. The guidance also says that Councils have a duty to promote the welfare of all adults and children and ensure there are no safeguarding concerns relating to an application to join the scheme.
14. The guidance in place at the time did not say who was responsible for telling sponsors their application would not be approved.

What happened

15. In early-April the DHLUC notified the Council of a ‘match’ involving a Ukrainian family, who were due to live at Mr X’s property. Mr X made an appointment with the Council to start a DBS check and told the Council he intended to move out of his property when the family moved in.
16. During April, Mr X and the Council had several telephone calls about the scheme. Mr X subsequently asked to change his DBS appointment to a later time from April until May and was concerned this would delay the guests travelling. During the contact Mr X had with the Council, it told him his guests had their visa for travel approved and the DBS checks not being completed before they were due to arrive would not prevent their travel.
17. According to the case notes, in late April, the Council team dealing with the application made a record of a safeguarding concern after the police had given the Council information. The Council then told the DHLUC that Mr X’s application had failed, and an alternative sponsor would need to be found for the guests.
18. The Council told me in its response to my enquiries, a panel decided it could not support Mr X’s application because:
• The guests had two children
• The Council had not confirmed Mr X would move out
• The property only had two bedrooms
19. The Council also said it prioritised telling the DHLUC because it knew the family would arrive soon and would need another sponsor to be matched. The Council also said there was no clarity on whose role it was to tell the sponsors their application had failed.
20. Mr X planned for the guests to be collected at the airport in early May and was later informed the guests had been moved to another property. Mr X told me he tried to contact the Council but did not get a response.
21. In mid-May the Council sent Mr X a reminder letter about his scheduled DBS appointment the day before it was due. Mr X travelled to make this appointment and when he arrived, the Council told him it had been cancelled.
22. After this, in late May, the Council wrote to Mr X and told him his application had failed.
23. In the subsequent complaint correspondence, the Council accepted it should have told Mr X about his failed application sooner and apologised.
24. Mr X made a complaint to the Police, who acknowledged the information they passed to the Council was not accurate.

My findings

25. The guidance makes it clear the Council is responsible for ensuring safeguarding concerns are properly considered. The available evidence shows a panel involving Council officers from Children’s and Adult Social Care considered the information and decided it could not support Mr X’s application.
26. I am aware Mr X has challenged the information the Police passed to the Council, but there was no fault on the Council acting on the information it had at that point.
27. The guidance in place at the time did not explicitly say who was responsible for telling sponsors their application had failed. This is something that later versions of the guidance now make clear.
28. Notwithstanding, the Council was responsible for administering the process locally and would have been aware of an impending DBS appointment Mr X was due to attend at its request. It sent Mr X a reminder for this and could have taken steps to notify him much sooner to minimise the disruption and unnecessary expense he incurred. This was fault and caused an injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within six weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £150 to Mr X to recognise the avoidable time and trouble he experienced.

Back to top

Final decision

30. There was fault in delays by the Council in letting Mr X know his application for the Homes for Ukraine scheme had failed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman